1. ' MUHAMMAD AFLAL ZULLAH, J.-Order passed by a learned Member, Board of Revenue, in the revisional jurisdiction in a consolidation matter having been challenged in constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, the petitioners failed to obtain the desired relief, therefore, they have sought leave to appeal. Learned counsel, as in addition to the arguments raised in the High Court, has tried to advance other arguments on merits, with the assertion that they also, were taken in the memo. Of the writ petition.
2. ' One of the arguments raised in the High Court was that the petitioners were not,afforded due opportunity of hearing. This point has been decided against them on a finding of fact which does not suffer from any infirmity legal or otherwise. The argument that the land originally belonging to the petitioners should have been allowed to remain with them at least insofar as the major parcel thereof is concerned was not pressed before the learned Member, Board of Revenue, therefore, the learned judge in the High Court refused to entertain it in writ jurisdiction. The exercise of discretion in this behalf is not against any principle. The question raised in the High Court was relatable to factual inquiry and assessm ent. It should have been pressed before the Tribunal concerned so that the High Court would have been benefited by the opinion of the. Tribunal. The refusal to entertain such an argument in the circumstances of the case is unexceptionable.
3. Learned counsel tried to assert it that all the points were raised before the learned Member, Board of Revenue and also before the High Court. We regret, his bare statement cannot be preferred over the contents of the relevant orders. This petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.